Visual History of the World

(CONTENTS)
 

 


HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION & CULTURE

From Prehistoric to Romanesque  Art
Gothic Art
Renaissance  Art
Baroque and Rococo Art
The Art of Asia
Neoclassicism, Romanticism  Art
Art Styles in 19th century
Art of the 20th century
Artists that Changed the World
Design and Posters
Photography
Classical Music
Literature and Philosophy

Visual History of the World
Prehistory
First Empires
The Ancient World
The Middle Ages
The Early Modern Period
The Modern Era
The World Wars and Interwar Period
The Contemporary World

Dictionary of Art and Artists

 




The Middle Ages

5th - 15th century


 


The upheaval that accompanied the migration of European peoples of late antiquity shattered the power of the Roman Empire and consequently the entire political order of Europe. Although Germanic kingdoms replaced Rome, the culture of late antiquity, especially Christianity, continued to have an effect and defined the early Middle Ages. Concurrent to the developments in the Christian West, in Arabia the Prophet Muhammad in the seventh century founded Islam, a new religion with immense political and military effectiveness. Within a very short time, great Islamic empires developed from the Iberian Peninsula and the Maghreb to India and Central Asia, with centers such as Cordoba, Cairo, Baghdad, and Samarkand.
 



The Cathedral Notre Dame de Reims, built in the 1 3th—14th century in the Gothic style; the cathedral served for many centuries as the location for the ceremonial coronation of the French king.

The Cathedral of Reims, by Domenico Quaglio

 

 


England in the  Middle Ages
 


CA. 450-1485
 

 


Norman Rule in England
 

William the Conqueror and his successors introduced a well-organized central government to which the nobility and the Church were subordinate.

 

Danish Vikings who came to be known as Normans (or Norsemen)  settled permanently around the estuary of the Seine in northern France toward the end of the ninth century.

In 911, the West Frankish king Charles III was compelled to accept as vassal the Norman leader Rollo, who converted to Christianity and was elevated to count of 1 Normandy.


1 Caen Castle in Normandy, France, one of the largest medieval
fortresses in Europe, built by William the Conqueror prior to his
invasion of England



Through marriage, the counts and later dukes established connections with the French and English royal houses and became a significant power factor.

Inheritance claims resulting from this led to the 2 invasion of England by Duke William, a descendent of Rollo, and his 5 coronation as King William I (the Conqueror) in 1066 ushering in Norman rule in England.

 


2 William the Conqueror lands on
the English coast, engraving,
19th century


5 Coronation of William the Conqueror as
King of England, in the background towns
destroyed during his invasion


By 1071, William had conquered all of England. He quickly installed the European feudal system in England. The Salisbury Oath of Allegiance in 1086 swore vassals to loyalty to their sovereign lords. Rebel Anglo-Saxon nobles were dispossessed and their properties divided among the Norman invaders.

William filled almost all the higher church, court, and state offices with his 6 followers.

As the Domesday Book of 1086 shows, at that point in time almost all private property was in the possession of the Normans. At the local level, however, the division of the country into shires, with a sheriff as royal officer, was carried over from the time of the Anglo-Saxons.


6 William the Conqueror feasts with his noble companions,
detail from the Bayeux Tapestry, late eleventh century




see also collection:


The
Bayeux Tapestry 


"Propaganda on cloth"
 

 

After William's death in 1087, a quarrel amongst his sons over the succession in England and Normandy developed.

His youngest son, 4 Henry I Beauclerc, emerged the winner.

The Synod of Westminster of 1107 that settled the English investiture conflict over the appointing of clergy by laymen took place during his reign.

3 Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury, a chief advocate of the philosophical movement of early scholasticism, was the King's opponent in the investiture question .

In contrast to his son-in-law, the Holy Roman Emperor Henry V, however, Henry I asserted his right to the investiture of Church offices, despite opposition.


4 Henry I,
book illustration, 14th century


3 Archbishop Anselm of Canturbury,
copper engraving, 18th century

 

 


The Domesday Book

In 1086, William the Conqueror ordered a complete survey of all land holdings and income in England.

 Together with a census of the population, this land register composed the Domesday Book and was the basis for calculating taxes.

Nowhere else in Europe was there a similarly comprehensive administration at the time as that of the Normans.



Page from the Domesday Book for Warwickshire,
including listing of Birmingham

 

 

 


The House of Plantagenet
 

The Plantagenet family attempted to consolidate the English monarchy while further enlarging its possessions in France.

 

Following the early death of his only son, Henry I forced the nobility to recognize his daughter Matilda as heiress to the throne. In her second marriage, she had wed the Frenchman Geoffrey, count of Anjou, who was named Plantagenet after a gorse-branch helmet decoration he wore in tournaments. When Henry died in 1135, his nephew Stephen, count of Blois, usurped the throne. After a long civil war between the two, Stephen was finally forced to recognize Matilda and Geoffrey's son, Henry Plantagenet, count of Anjou and duke of Normandy, as his successor in 1153. In 1154, after the death of Stephen of Blois, he became King Henry II of England.

In the turmoil, the central royal authority had deteriorated, and the nobility as well as the Church had gained in power. In order to strengthen his position, Henry tried to standardize the legal system.

The reforms, however, diminished the power of the church courts; even the clergy was required to submit to the royal secular courts, which led to à 7 dispute with Thomas Becket, the archbishop of Canterbury.


7 Dispute between Henry II and Thomas Becket,
book illustration, 14th century



In 1169, Henry began the conquest of Ireland .

However, his great success in power politics was his marriage to 11 Eleanor of Aquitaine, the divorced wife of the French king Louis VII. In uniting Anjou, Normandy, and Aquitaine with the crown of England, the Plantagencts had founded the so-called Angevin kingdom, which challenged the power of the French king in his own country by rivaling his claims to French territories.


11 Tombs of Henry II (foreground) and Eleanor of Aquitaine,
in the Church Notre Dame de Fontevraud, in France,
painted stone, late twelfth-early 13th century



Henry's successor, his son 8 Richard I (the Lion-Hearted), who took the throne in 1189, marched off to the Holy Land in the Third Crusade shortly after his coronation.

It was reports of the situation at home that persuaded him to return.

However, on his return journey, he was taken 10 prisoner near Vienna in 1192 by Duke Leopold V of Austria, with whom he had quarreled during the crusade. Leopold V demanded a huge ransom in return for Richard's release.

The payments brought England to the edge of bankruptcy. Tax increases and the tyranny of John Lackland, who reigned as regent in the absence of his brother Richard, led to unrest in the population.

These were the conditions that gave rise to the legend of 9 Robin Hood, who stole from the rich to give to the poor.


9 The mythical hero Robin Hood wakes
up a sleeping Friar Tuck,
wood engraving, 19th century

see also text





"The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood"



by H. Pyle



After his return from captivity in 1194, Richard had to reconquer his lost French possessions, the major part of which had been occupied by Philip II Augustus of France in the meantime. However, he was killed in 1199 in battle against rebelling nobility in Aquitaine.


8 Richard I, wood etching,
19th century


10 On his return from the crusades, a disguised Richard the Lion-Hearted is recognized and captured near Vienna,
book illustration, late twelfth century


 

 

 

Thomas Becket

When Henry II decreed in 1164 that the clergy would be held accountable to the secular courts, Thomas Becket, the archbishop of Canterbury, objected.

He was murdered in Canterbury Cathedral in 1170 by knights allegedly acting in response to Henry's rhetorical question "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?"

Deeply distressed, Henry did penance at Becket'sgrave and repealed his decrees.



Henry II at the grave of Thomas Becket, engraving, 19th century

 

 

 

Saint Thomas Becket

archbishop of Canterbury
also called Thomas À Becket, or Thomas Of London

born c. 1118, Cheapside, London
died December 29, 1170, Canterbury, Kent, England; canonized 1173; feast day December 29

Main
chancellor of England (1155–62) and archbishop of Canterbury (1162–70) during the reign of King Henry II. His career was marked by a long quarrel with Henry that ended with Becket’s murder in Canterbury cathedral.

Early life and career.
Thomas was born to Norman parents of the merchant class. He was educated first at Merton priory, then in a City of London school, and finally at Paris. Deeply influenced in childhood by a devout mother who died when he was 21, Thomas entered adult life as a city clerk and accountant in the service of the sheriffs. After three years he was introduced by his father to Archbishop Theobald, a former abbot of Bec, of whose household he became a member. His colleagues were a distinguished company that included the political philosopher John of Salisbury, the Roman lawyer Vacarius, and several future bishops, including Roger of Pont l’Évêque, later archbishop of York. Thomas won Theobald’s confidence, acted as his agent, and was sent by him to study civil and canon law at Bologna and Auxerre.

His contemporaries described Thomas as a tall and spare figure with dark hair and a pale face that flushed in excitement. His memory was extraordinarily tenacious and, though neither a scholar nor a stylist, he excelled in argument and repartee. He made himself agreeable to all around him, and his biographers attest that he led a chaste life—in this respect uninfluenced by the King.


As chancellor.
In 1154 Theobald, as a reward of his services, appointed Thomas archdeacon of Canterbury, an important and lucrative post, and less than three months later recommended him to Henry as chancellor. Here Thomas showed to the full his brilliant abilities, razing castles, repairing the Tower of London, conducting embassies, and raising and leading troops in war. Trusted completely by the King, Thomas was compared by a biographer to Joseph under Pharaoh. To Henry himself Thomas was a welcome companion and intimate friend, both at court and in the chase, aiding the King in his policy of gathering all power into the hands of the monarchy, even when that policy went against claims of the church. Thomas, older than Henry by 15 years and celibate, may well have felt, at least initially, a quasi-paternal or elder-brother affection, mingled with admiration for Henry’s talents and charm. He must also have enjoyed the satisfaction of moving in a rank of society to which he had not been born. Henry’s attitude is less easy to identify, but the efficiency and intelligence of Thomas must have recommended him to a king surrounded by uneducated and at times truculent barons.

Whether Becket was fully satisfied with his life as chancellor is another matter. Throughout his life Thomas gave with prodigality and acted with panache. The description of the procession of men, beasts, and carriages laden with objects of luxury that accompanied him as envoy to Paris in 1158 is one of the highlights of William FitzStephen’s Life of Thomas Becket. This, and his customary splendour of clothing and furnishings, suited ill with his status as archdeacon. More serious in the eyes of contemporaries was his refusal to surrender his archdeaconry while neglecting its duties, and his extraction of scutage (payment in lieu of military service) at a high rate from ecclesiastical fiefs. Most serious to modern minds is his failure to visit the disapproving and dying Theobald when summoned. In general, there can be no doubt that in public affairs he was the King’s man, even when Henry endeavoured to reassert what he claimed to be his ancestral rights.

Meanwhile, the great movement known as the Gregorian reform had spread from Italy to France and the Holy Roman Empire and had begun to influence English churchmen. In its program, free elections to clerical posts, inviolability of church property, freedom of appeal to Rome, and clerical immunity from lay tribunals were leading points. Under Henry I and Stephen, the archbishops had stood out for these reforms, sometimes with partial success. Henry II, however, undoubtedly aimed at a complete return to the practice of Henry I, who had strict control over the church. He had begun to press his claims, and his chancellor had aided him. With the death of Theobald in 1161, Henry hoped to appoint Thomas as archbishop and thus complete his program.


As archbishop.
For almost a year after the death of Theobald the see of Canterbury was vacant. Thomas was aware of the King’s intention and tried to dissuade him by warnings of what would happen. Henry persisted and Thomas was elected. Once consecrated, Thomas changed both his outlook and his way of life. He became devout and austere and embraced the integral program of the papacy and its canon law. This spectacular change has baffled historians, and several explanations have been attempted: that Thomas was intoxicated by his ambition to dominate or that he threw himself, as before, into a part he had agreed to play. It is simpler to suppose that he accepted at last the spiritual obligations he had ignored as chancellor and turned into a new channel his mingled energy, force of character, impetuosity, and ostentation. Greatly to Henry’s displeasure, he immediately resigned the chancellorship but clung to the archdeaconry until forced by the King to resign. Henry had been in Normandy since August 1158, and on his return in January 1163 Thomas began the struggle by opposing a tax proposal and excommunicating a leading baron. More serious was his attitude in the matter of “criminous clerks.” In western Europe, accused clerics for long had enjoyed the privilege of standing trial before the bishop rather than secular courts and usually received milder punishments than lay courts would assess. In England before the Conquest this was still the custom. If found guilty in an ecclesiastical court, clerics could be degraded or exiled but were not liable to death or mutilation. For 60 years after the Norman Conquest little is heard of clerical crime or its punishment, while on the Continent, Gregorian reformers were tending to emphasize the sole right of the church to try and punish clerks in major orders. The position of Thomas, that a guilty clerk could be degraded and punished by the bishop but should not be punished again by lay authority—“not twice for the same fault”—was canonically arguable and ultimately prevailed. Henry’s contention that clerical crime was rife and that it was encouraged by the absence of drastic penalties commends itself to modern readers as a fair one. But it must be remembered that the King’s motives were authoritarian and administrative rather than enlightened. Nevertheless, it may be thought that Thomas was ill-advised in his rigid stand on this point. The issue was joined in a council at Westminster (October 1163), but the crisis came at Clarendon (Wiltshire, January 1164), when the King demanded a global assent to all traditional royal rights, reduced to writing under 16 heads and known as the Constitutions of Clarendon. These asserted the King’s right to punish criminous clerks, forbade excommunication of royal officials and appeals to Rome, and gave the King the revenues of vacant sees and the power to influence episcopal elections. Henry was justified in saying that these rights had been exercised by Henry I, but Thomas also was justified in maintaining that they contravened church law. Thomas, after verbally accepting the constitutions, revoked his assent and appealed to the Pope, then in France, who supported him while deprecating precipitate action.


Quarrel with Henry.
Good relations between Thomas and Henry were now at an end; the Archbishop was summoned to trial by the King on a point of feudal obligation. At the Council of Northampton (Oct. 6–13, 1164), it was clear that Henry intended to ruin and imprison or to force the resignation of the Archbishop. In this he was encouraged by some of the bishops, among them Gilbert Foliot, bishop of London. Thomas fled in disguise and took refuge with Louis VII of France. Pope Alexander III received him with honour but hesitated to act decisively in his favour in fear that he might throw Henry into the arms of the Holy Roman emperor Frederick I and his antipope, Paschal III.

Thomas’ exile lasted for six years (Nov. 2, 1164–Dec. 2, 1170). He was joined by many of his distinguished household and lived ascetically, first at Pontigny Abbey and then, when Henry threatened the monks, at an abbey near Sens. Henry meanwhile had seized the properties of the Archbishop and his supporters and had exiled all Thomas’ close relatives. In the following years several abortive attempts were made at reconciliation, but new acts of hostility by the King and declarations of excommunication hurled by Thomas at his opponents embittered the struggles.

The bishops were divided, but a majority of them, led by Foliot, were either hostile to Thomas or hesitant in supporting him. Papal legates more than once endeavoured to mediate, and the King and the Archbishop came together at Montmirail in 1169, only to part in anger. Thomas distrusted the King and was, in turn, hated by him. In the same year, Henry put out additions to the Constitutions of Clarendon, virtually withdrawing England from papal obedience. Finally, in 1170, he had his eldest son crowned as co-king by the archbishop of York, Becket’s old rival.

This was a flagrant breach of papal prohibition and of the immemorial right of Canterbury to crown the king. Thomas, followed by the Pope, excommunicated all responsible. Henry, fearing an interdict for England, met Thomas at Fréteval (July 22), and it was agreed that Thomas should return to Canterbury and receive back all the possessions of his see. Neither party withdrew from his position regarding the Constitutions of Clarendon, which on this occasion were not mentioned. This “open-ended” concordat has remained an inexplicable event. Thomas returned to Canterbury (December 2) and was received with enthusiasm, but further excommunications of the hostile royal servants, refusal to lift the excommunication of Roger of York and Foliot, as well as his ready acceptance of tumultuous acclaim by the crowds infuriated Henry in Normandy.


Martyrdom.
Some violent words of Henry were taken literally by four leading knights of the court, who proceeded swiftly to Canterbury (December 29), forced themselves into the Archbishop’s presence, and, on his refusal to absolve the bishops, followed him into the cathedral. There, at twilight, after further altercation, they cut him down with their swords. His last words were an acceptance of death in defense of the church of Christ.

Within a few days after Thomas’ death, his tomb became a goal of pilgrimage, and he was canonized by Alexander III in 1173. In 1174 Henry did penance at Canterbury and was absolved. For almost four centuries, Becket’s shrine was one of the most famous in Europe. Thomas was portrayed in illuminations and sculpture, and churches were dedicated to him throughout western Christendom.

Judgment on the character and actions of St. Thomas has been varied. From his martyrdom until the reign of Henry VIII, he was the “blisful martir” of Chaucer’s pilgrims, who had heroically defied a tyrant. Henry VIII despoiled his shrine, burned his bones, and erased his name from all service books. Thenceforth Thomas was a hero to Catholics and a traitor to Protestants.

Many recent historians, impressed by the legal and administrative reforms of Henry II, have seen Thomas as an ambitious and fanatical nuisance. Certainly there is room for debate, for both Thomas and his king were remarkable men with complex characters. If Henry had moral failings and made private and political miscalculations, Thomas can rightly be accused, at various moments of his life, of worldly behaviour, ostentation, impetuosity, weakness, and violent language. If Henry was ill-advised in committing his claims to writing at Clarendon and in crowning his son, Thomas was equally ill-advised in needlessly opposing the King in 1163 and in wavering between compliance and intransigence when careful diplomacy might have won out. But his courage and sincerity cannot be doubted, and in the quarrel between church and state he gave his life for what he took to be a vital issue.

The Rev. Michael David Knowles, O.S.B.
 

Encyclopaedia Britannica
 

 


St Thomas & the men of Strood by Meister Francke
from the St Thomas Altarpiece.


 


The martyrdom of St Thomas from the St Thomas Altarpiece commissioned in 1424,
 from Meister Francke by the Guild of English Merchants in Hamburg


 


St. Thomas Becket, right, faces King Henry II
 in a dispute Picture by Peter of Langtoft


 


St. Thomas Becket and King Henry II


 


The murder of St. Thomas Becket who kneels at a
side chapel of Canterbury Cathedral


 


A late 15th century alabaster panel
representing the martyrdom
of St. Thomas Becket

 

 

Discuss Art

Please note: site admin does not answer any questions. This is our readers discussion only.

 
| privacy